Applying lakatos-style reasoning to AI problems

Thinking Machines and the Philosophy of Computer Science: Concepts and Principles

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 149-173

  Pease, Alison ^a   Ireland, Andrew ^b   Colton, Simon ^c   Ramezani, Ramin ^c   Smaill, Alan ^a   Llano, Maria Teresa ^b   Grov, Gudmund ^a   Guhe, Markus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84896389196     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61692-014-2.ch010     Document Type: Chapter

References (51)

1. Aberdein, A. (2005). The uses of argument in mathematics. Argumentation, 19, 287-301. doi:10.1007/s10503-005-4417-8
2. Abramsky, S. (1994). Proofs as processes. Theoretical Computer Science, 135, 5-9. doi:10.1016/0304-3975(94)00103-0
3. Abrial, J.-R. (2009). Modelling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering. Cambridge, UK: Cam bridge University Press.
4. Abrial, J.-R., Butler, M., Hallerstede, S., Hoang, T. S., Metha, F., and Voisin, L. (2009). Rodin: An Open Toolset for Modelling and Reasoning in Event-B. Journal of Software Tools for Technology Transfer.
5. Barton, B. (2009). The Language of Mathematics: Telling Mathematical Tales. Math ematics Education Library, 46. Berlin: Springer.
6. Bessiere, C., Coletta, R., Koriche, F., & O'Sullivan, B. (2005). A sat-based version space algorithm for acquiring constraint satisfaction problems. Proceedings of ECML'05, 23-34.
7. Bundy, A. (2007). Cooperating reasoning processes: More than just the sum of their parts. Research Excellence Award Acceptance Speech at IJCAI-07.
8. Cauchy, A. L. (1813). Recherches sur les poly'edres. Journal de l'́Ecole Polytechnique, 9, 68-86.
9. Cauchy, A. L. (1821). Cours d'Analyse de l'Ecole Polyechnique. Paris: de Bure.
10. Charnley, J., Colton, S., & Miguel, I. (2006). Automatic generation of implied con straints. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on AI.
11. Colton, S. (2002). Automated Theory Formation in Pure Mathematics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
12. Colton, S., & Miguel, I. (2001). Constraint generation via automated theory formation. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on the Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, Cyprus.
13. Colton, S., & Pease, A. (2005). The TM system for repairing non-theorems. In Selected papers from the IJCAR'04 disproving workshop. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 125(3).
14. Constable, R. & Moczyd lowski, W. (2006). Extracting programs from constructive HOL proofs via IZF set-theoretic semantics, (LNCS 4130, pp. 162-176).
15. Corfield, D. (1997). Assaying Lakatos's philosophy of mathematics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 28(1), 99-121. doi:10.1016/S0039-3681(96)00002-7
16. Davis, P., & Hersh, R. (1980). The Mathematical Experience. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
17. Donaldson, T., & Cohen, R. (1998). Selecting the next action with constraints. In (LNCS 1418, pp. 220-227). Berlin: Springer.
18. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.
19. Feferman, S. (1978). The logic of mathematical discovery vs. the logical structure of mathematics. In P. D. Asquith & I. Hacking, (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1978 BiennialMeeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, (vol. 2, pp. 309-327).
20. Freuder, E., & Wallace, R. (1992). Partial constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence, (58): 21-70x>. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(92)90004-H
21. Frisch, A., Miguel, I., & Walsh, T. (2002). CGRASS: A system for transforming con straint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings of the Joint Workshop of the ERCIM Working Group on Constraints and the CologNet area on Constraint and Logic Programming on Constraint Solving and Constraint Logic Programming (LNAI 2627, pp. 15-30).
22. Gent, I., Rendl, A., Miguel, I., & Jefferson, C. (2009). Enhancing constraint model instances during tailoring. In Proceedings of SARA.
23. Haggith, M. (1996). A meta-level argumentation framework for representing and reasoning about disagreement. PhD thesis, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh.
24. Hayes-Roth, F. (1983). Using proofs and refutations to learn from experience. In R. S. Michalski J. G. Carbonell, & T. M. Mitchell, (Ed.), Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, (pp. 221-240). Palo Alto, CA: Tioga Publishing Company.
25. Kitcher, P. (1983). The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26. Laburthe, F. & the OCRE project team (2000). Choco: implementing a CP kernel. In Proceedings of the CP'00 Post Conference Workshop on Techniques for Implementing Constraint Programming Systems (TRICS), Singapore.
27. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and Refutations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28. Lakatos, I. (1978). Cauchy and the continuum: the significance of non-standard anal ysis for the history and philosophy of mathematics. In Worral, J., & Currie, C. (Eds.), Mathematics, science and epistemology (pp. 43-60). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511624926
29. Lakoff, G. & N ́ũnez, R. (2001). Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic Books Inc.
30. Leuschel, M., & Butler, M. (2008). ProB: an Automated Analysis Toolset for the B Method. Journal Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 10(2), 185-203. doi:10.1007/s10009-007-0063-9
31. McCasland, R., & Bundy, A. (2006). MATHsAiD: a mathematical theorem discovery tool. In SYNASC'06, (pp. 17-22). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press.
32. McCasland, R., Bundy, A., & Smith, P. (2006). Ascertaining mathematical theorems. In Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS), 151(1), 21-38.
33. McCune, W. (1994). Otter 3.0 Reference Manual and Guide. Technical Report ANL-94/6, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, USA.
34. McCune, W. (2001). MACE 2.0 Reference Manual and Guide. Technical Report ANL/MCS-TM-249, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, USA.
35. McNeill, F. & Bundy, A. R. (2007). Dynamic, automatic, first-order ontology repair by diagnosis of failed plan execution. IJSWIS (International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems) special issue on Ontology Matching, 3(3), 1-35.
36. Muggleton, S. (1995). Inverse entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing, 13, 245-286. doi:10.1007/BF03037227
37. Pease, A. (2007). A Computational Model of Lakatos-style Reasoning.
38. Pease, A., Colton, S., Smaill, A., & Lee, J. (2004). A model of Lakatos's philosophy of mathematics. In Proceedings of Computing and Philosophy. ECAP.
39. Pease, A., Smaill, A., Colton, S., & Lee, J. (2009). Bridging the gap between ar gumentation theory and the philosophy of mathematics. Special Issue: Mathematics and Argumentation. Foundations of Science, 14(1-2), 111-135. doi:10.1007/s10699008-9150-y
40. PhD thesis, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1842/2113
41. Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42. Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning: Vol. 1. Induction and analogy in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43. Polya, G. (1962). Mathematical Discovery. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
44. Rissland, E. L., & Skalak, D. B. (1991). Cabaret: Statutory interpretation in a hybrid architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 839-887. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90013-W
45. Ruttkay, Z. (1994). Fuzzy constraint satisfaction. In 3rd IEEE Int. Conf. on Fuzzy Systems, (pp. 1263-1268).
46. Skalak, D. B., & Rissland, E. L. (1991). Argument moves in a rule-guided domain. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, (pp. 1-11). New York: ACM Press.
47. Snook, C. F., & Butler, M. (2008). UML-B: A plug-in for the Event-B Tool Set. In E. B̈orger, M. Butler, J. P. Bowen, & P. Boca, (Eds.), ABZ 2008, (LNCS 5238, pp. 344). Berlin: Springer.
48. Tsang, E. (1993). Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction. London: Academic Press.
49. Tymoczko, T. (Ed.). (1998). New directions in the philosophy of mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Prince ton University Press.
50. Weld, D. (1994). An introduction to least commitment planning. AI Magazine, 15(4), 27-61.
51. Winterstein, D. (2004). Using Diagrammatic Reasoning for Theorem Proving in a Continuous Domain. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.